Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 787 (GAU)

Tapan Kumar Saha v. State of Tripura

2010-09-30

C.R.SARMA, I.A.ANSARI

body2010
JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4. Heard also Mr. N. C. Pal, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and Mr. S. Deb, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the remaining respondents. 2. Title Suit No. 04 of 2009 was instituted by respondent No. 4 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Sr. Division No. 2, Agartala, with the present petitioners, as defendants, seeking specific performance of contract of sale of land as described in the schedule to the plaint. While the suit was pending, an application was made by the present petitioners, on 09.04.2010, seeking rejection of the plaint. The petitioners, having executed, on 01.06.2010, as many as 9 sale deeds, on stamp papers of Rs.9.48 lakhs valued at Rs.1,89,00,000/-, transferring the said landed property to the 15 interveners, who stand impleaded in this writ petition as respondent numbers 5 to 19, presented the said 9 sale deeds in the office of the respondent No. 3, namely, Sub-Registrar, Sadar, Agartala, for registration. The petitioners claim that the respondent No. 3, having purportedly received an objection filed by the respondent No. 4 herein on 01.06.2010, returned the sale deeds to the petitioners counsel for presentation, again, on 14.06.2010. The sale deeds were accordingly presented on 14.06.2010 to the respondent No. 3 along with a petition stating to the effect inter alia, that there was no injunction, decree or order from any court and, hence, the objection, raised by the respondent No. 4 herein, to the registration of the said sale deeds was groundless. Till date, however, registration of the sale deeds has not been done by the respondent No. 3. 3. Aggrieved by the fact that the registration of the sale deeds aforementioned has not been completed as yet, the petitioners have filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking, inter alia, issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 3, to admit to registration the said 9 sale deeds executed by the petitioners on 11.06.2010 and presented to the Sub-registry, Sadar, Agartala, as far as back on 14.06.2010. 4. 4. Appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, learned Government Advocate, has produced the relevant records. What could be gathered from the records is that the registration has not been allowed till date due to two reasons, namely, i) that the property, sold under the sale deeds and offered, on execution thereof by the venders, for registration, is involved in a litigation i.e. the property, covered by the said sale deeds, is a subject matter of a civil litigation and ii) that the sale deeds do not mention the place of execution of the power of attorney on the basis of which the sale deeds by one of the vendors has been executed and offered for registration. 5. As far as the ground of lis pendence is concerned, i.e., namely that the property, in question, is involved in a civil litigation, suffice it to point out that pendency of a civil suit does not bar registration of a deed of sale of such a property even if the suit is for declaration of right, title or interest and/or for specific performance of contract of sale of the property. 6. In the absence, therefore, of any direction or order passed by any court of competent jurisdiction, the mere fact that there was civil litigation pending the registration of the sale deeds was not barred in law if there was no other impediment in law for registration thereof. Whoever sells immovable property involved in a civil litigation or whoever purchases such property, sells or purchases, as the case may be, subject to such order or orders as may be passed in the civil suit, civil appeal etc. On the ground, therefore, that a suit was pending in respect of the property, which was covered by the sale deed, registration of the sale deeds, in the absence of any other legal impediment, could not have refused. 7. As far as the ground that the sale deeds do not mention, the place of execution of the power of attorney, it may be pointed out that it is within the powers', of a registrar or sub registrar, as the case may be, allow correction of sale deeds before its registration. 8. 7. As far as the ground that the sale deeds do not mention, the place of execution of the power of attorney, it may be pointed out that it is within the powers', of a registrar or sub registrar, as the case may be, allow correction of sale deeds before its registration. 8. Because of what happened discussed and pointed out above, we do not find any valid reason having been assigned by the respondent No. 3 for his omission to register the sale deeds offered for registration by the petitioners. 9. We, therefore, allow this writ petition and direct the State-respondents, particularly, respondent No. 3, to take up the sale deeds and do the needful in accordance with law within two days from today. 10. Before pertaining with this writ petition, we may point out that after the presentation of the sale deeds for registration on 01.06.2010, the plaint, which had come to be registered as Title Suit No. 04 of 2009, was rejected and an appeal against the dismissal of the suit has been preferred before this Court and the same stands registered as RFA No. 06 of 2010. Whatever order or orders, which may be passed, or decision or decisions, which may be rendered in the said appeal shall have no bearing on the power of the registrar or Sub-registrar, as the case may be, to register the sale deeds as mentioned above unless, otherwise, directed by the Court in its appellate order. 11. We have heard and disposed of the writ petition as indicated above, because of the fact that the pendency of the appeal has no bearing on the power of the respondent No. 3 to register the sale deeds. 12. In the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs of this Judgment and Order. 13. Furnish a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the parties. Petition allowed.